Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Permit Number - DP14-0044
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/05/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Complete Landscaping Development Package (1st Review) DP14-0044 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 9, 2014 DUE DATE: July 2, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is March 24, 2015. 2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 1. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the Use Specific Standard 4.9.13.Q on the plan. COMMENT: Permitting note 3, the proposed use should be listed as BUILDING AND GROUND MAINTENANCE, subject to Use Specific Standard 4.9.13.Q. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 2. COMMENT: Just north of proposed BLDG. D there is a vehicle parking space dimension that does not line up with the parking space. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 3. This comment was not completely addressed. Provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.D.2, .3 & .5 are met. Provide COMMENT: Show the required long-term bicycle parking on the site plan and provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.D are met. 2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. 4. Until all recordation information has been provided the development package cannot be approved. COMMENT: Provide the recordation information for all proposed easements on the plan. When the above comments have been addressed Zoning is will to provide an over-the-counter review. Call or email to schedule this appointment. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 06/19/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Distance from fire hydrant to furthest part of new building appears to exceed the 400' limit prescribed by the fire code. Sprinkler building or add additional fire hydrant. Verify gate meets requirements of section 503.6 of the 2012 International Fire Code. Please remove references to Northwest Fire and State Fire Marshall on sheet 3 |
| 06/23/2014 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/23/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Identification and Descriptive Data All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. Ensure that all Zoning & Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to Landscape approval. |
| 07/01/2014 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | TO: Clint Glass P.E., Richard Macias P.E. SUBJECT: DP14-0044 Complete Landscaping Development Package (SP/GP/SWPP) 2nd submittal Engineering Review ADDRESS: 2474 N FLOWING WELLS RD, Ward 3 LOCATION: T13S R13E Section 35 FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-unshaded, 1688L REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed and provides comments to the resubmittal of the Development Package including SWPP and Drainage Report. Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Package at this time. Prior to resubmittal, address the remaining comments based on Tucson Code Chapter 26, Technical Manual section and/or Administrative Manual. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) Tech Man Sec.2-01.4.1.C:: Address the following Development Package general note comments: i) Add verbiage for drainage maintenance per this section of drainage manual: DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2. ii) The following notes will be added to permit as permit conditions, per your response letter: (1) Call for DSD Engineering Inspection meetings. For a DSD Engineering Inspection, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 837-4888, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html (2) Any engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Planning and Development Services Inspector inspects work and accepts it. (3) If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and permit has not been renewed, additional fees / reviews may be required. (4) The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required field reports or other closure documentation has been submitted. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 2) Tech Man Sec.10-01 Fig.17: SVT's are incorrectly drawn - show SVT's to connect to edge of curved pavement. Assure Landscape plans are updated accordingly. SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS: 3) Label proposed stormwater storage tanks on sheet C3.0. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 4) Tech Man Sec.4-03.3.5.1.3: Stormdrain system needs to be revised to assure no standing water in pipe system. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 5) Tech Man Sec.10-01.5.1B: Regarding landscape sheets address the remaining comment: Label SVT's on planviews on landscape plan to match civil sheets. GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 6) Tech Man Sec.2-01.4.1.C,10-01.5.1B: Address the following grading comments for sheet C4.0: a) For grading construction, show and label local benchmark elevation location on planview. b) To differentiate between weir and bleed pipe inverts, add elevations on detail 13 on sheet 6.1. Add 100-yr WSEL on this detail as well. c) Add erosion protection at outlet area within property limits. d) Provide corrected SVT's on planviews. UTILITIES / EASEMENTS COMMENTS: 7) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Address the remaining easement comment: Add recording information for electrical easements on planview on utility sheet. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 8) Tucson Code Chap.26 Article II: Sheet C8.0 shall be revised to place concrete washout area outside of ponding limits. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 9) No comment. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, last Drainage Report, geotechnical report, SWPPP report, and comprehensive response letter that address the comments provided above. It is recommended that a meeting is held prior to resubmittal. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/08/2014 | AROMERO4 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 09/08/2014 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/08/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |